Dunkirk : Will they show the American contribution to the war?
1
2
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
I hope so. It would be very boring without them.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Lol I get it. Good joke
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
I hope not. I'm sick and tired of watching American patriotic nonsense on our screens. Is there also some Hollywood rule that every movie/series needs to show the American flag at some point??? Jeezzz
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
get used to it cuckboy
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Then make your own god damn movies and quit watching ours.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Agreed
Not enough war films are from the US perspective. The only way to have honored the US' noble sacrifice would have been to have had US troops invading and winning rather than British troops retreating
Not enough war films are from the US perspective. The only way to have honored the US' noble sacrifice would have been to have had US troops invading and winning rather than British troops retreating
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
"Not enough war films are from the US perspective."
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
I like pseudo history myself but this is about what ACTUALLY happened. I don't have any gripes with American war movies. There are numerous war films told from an American perspective that are true classics of the genre,"Saving Private Ryan","Patton etc, etc. But please don't deny us our moments of glory. How would you like it if we remade "The Alamo" and have Wellington of the battle of Waterloo save Davy Crocket and Co?
Please,remember Hollywood is no respector of history .Only dollar signs.
Please,remember Hollywood is no respector of history .Only dollar signs.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Even "Saving Private Ryan" omitted the fact that the crews who set the Rangers ashore were Royal Navy.
One of the Royal Navy commanders of a landing craft at Omaha Beach was somewhat miffed about Steven Spielberg saying "There were no British at Omaha"
One of the Royal Navy commanders of a landing craft at Omaha Beach was somewhat miffed about Steven Spielberg saying "There were no British at Omaha"
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Please,remember Hollywood is no respector of history .Only dollar signs.
That may be why it's called show business and not education. If Dunkirk turns out to be more-or-less accurate (given the limitations of a dramatic format), then it is because the investors think that approach would be more profitable than otherwise.
British film has, on occasion, grossly distorted history to tell a cooler story. Zulu. for instance is a great film,. but only has a passing resemblance to real people and events. Famously, a bio-pic of Geoffrey DeHavilland claimed a British pilot first broke the sound barrier rather than an American one.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
America in WWII in 1940? Thats funny.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Ha ha, that's EXACTLY what I was about to say!
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Do you mean the usual/typical American contribution to ANY/ALL wars they took part in.as in turn up late/near the end and try to take all the credit ?.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
You really think the Brits would be where they are today if the US didn't get involved?
"Love all God's creation every grain of sand in it. Love every leaf, every ray of God's light."
"Love all God's creation every grain of sand in it. Love every leaf, every ray of God's light."
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
You really think the Brits would be where they are today if the US didn't get involved?
Er, yes.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
BOOM MIC DROP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Unlikely, considering this happened in 1940.
Maybe if the story goes beyond 1941 they might
Maybe if the story goes beyond 1941 they might
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
I wouldn't be surprise find if they find a way to include Mel Gibson flying over in an f16 to save the day
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
In all honesty, who the fck cares.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Well, the Americans basically did nothing in Europe in WWII as the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany in the battles of Moscow (1941), Stalingrad (42-43), Kursk (43) & 4th battle of Kharkov (43), all before the ''famous'' Normandy circus, which meant that by the time of Normandy the German Army was virtually finished, as they had gigantic casualties on all of the above battles.
Furthermore, Operation Bagration (where the Soviet Union took back the whole of Belorussia in 3 weeks and wiped out 700000 German troops in the process, and which started on June 21st 1944, while Normandy was going on) allowed the allied troops, that were stuck on the beaches of Normandy since the disembark on 6th June, to finally break out of the Normandy beaches.
This happened as Hitler had to send all the best troops keeping the allies trapped in the beaches to the Eastern Front (where by the way Germany lost 74% of their dead soldiers during the war) to plug the gigantic gap that Operation Bagration had caused (a gap the size of the western border of nowadays Poland)as the whole of Army Group Centre (700000 German troops) had been destroyed and literally there was virtually no troops between Warsaw (where Operation Bagration ended) and Berlin.
Furthermore, Operation Bagration (where the Soviet Union took back the whole of Belorussia in 3 weeks and wiped out 700000 German troops in the process, and which started on June 21st 1944, while Normandy was going on) allowed the allied troops, that were stuck on the beaches of Normandy since the disembark on 6th June, to finally break out of the Normandy beaches.
This happened as Hitler had to send all the best troops keeping the allies trapped in the beaches to the Eastern Front (where by the way Germany lost 74% of their dead soldiers during the war) to plug the gigantic gap that Operation Bagration had caused (a gap the size of the western border of nowadays Poland)as the whole of Army Group Centre (700000 German troops) had been destroyed and literally there was virtually no troops between Warsaw (where Operation Bagration ended) and Berlin.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Well, the Americans basically did nothing in Europe in WWII[ . . .
Except provide the majority of troops in Italy, make a massive effort in the bombing campaign, and destroy the ability of the Luftwaffe to make a significant contribution to the battlefield.
True, two thirds of the German Army was committed to the east, but the one third that was left waiting for the Americans and other Western Allies would have made a big difference in Russia.
This happened as Hitler had to send all the best troops keeping the allies trapped in the beaches to the Eastern Front
In fact, the armoured formations deployed to Normandy stayed there and were mostly destroyed there. 2.SS-Panzer, for instance, stayed in France until September.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Don't understand anything you are writing but he's right and exact while you aren't. Nice try.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
In what way, exactly, am I incorrect?
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
True, two thirds of the German Army was committed to the east, but the one third that was left waiting for the Americans and other Western Allies would have made a big difference in Russia
So two third could not make a difference but magically, a one third could?
The truth us that is that the US contribution to WWII occurred very late in the process. And it was in no shape at form as vital and determining as the Soviet contribution was.
But then again, thanks to Hollywood, people around the world tend to believe otherwise.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
So two third could not make a difference but magically, a one third could?
Do read my post more carefully before replying including quotations. It might help you avoid inadvertent straw men.
The truth us that is that the US contribution to WWII occurred very late in the process.
Only a few months later than that of the Soviet Union,actually, with material and naval aid beginning well before that.
And it was in no shape at form as vital and determining as the Soviet contribution was.
In fact, the Soviet war effort was heavily dependent on American aid - tanks, aircraft, trucks. locomotives, food, raw materials, food, and so on. American industry made the Battle of the Atlantic a forgone conclusion. The USAAF was one of the two key partners in the strategic bombing campaign and it was the key player in establishing Allied air superiority.
But then again, thanks to Hollywood, people around the world tend to believe otherwise.
You mean films made by Americans, paid for by Americans, and made for American audiences tend to be about Americans? A pity that other countries, like the UK, Russia, and China, don't make war movies. Why, the battle of Dunkirk, say, would make a good one for the British to make.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Well, the Americans basically did nothing in Europe in WWII as the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany in the battles of Moscow (1941), Stalingrad (42-43), Kursk (43) & 4th battle of Kharkov (43), all before the ''famous'' Normandy circus, which meant that by the time of Normandy the German Army was virtually finished, as they had gigantic casualties on all of the above battles
It's refreshing to see someone with an objective knowledge of WWII history. Thank you.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
"Well, the Americans basically did nothing in Europe in WWII as the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany"
Yeah yeah, we know. And the British sat around at home drinking weak tea, watching George Formby films and urging each other to "Keep Calm And Carry On".
Yeah yeah, we know. And the British sat around at home drinking weak tea, watching George Formby films and urging each other to "Keep Calm And Carry On".
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Is the US education system that bad?
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Trump is president.
I'm like a smart guy.
I'm like a smart guy.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Our education system is awful. All our books come from Texas and 85% of it is fabricated bull *beep* to stroke our ego. We also gloss over anything that makes us look bad.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Real question is if they are going to show the Russians contribution because they basically won the war. America didn't do *beep* our school books lied to us
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Real question is if they are going to show the Russians contribution
In late May 1940, the Soviet contribution consisted mainly of telling Communist Parties in the Allied countries and the US that this was just an imperialist war and to oppose any resistance to their friends, the Nazis.
They changed their mind about a year later, though, for some reason.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
and also the Soviets supplied oil & other raw materials to the German war industries.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Considering it was the British who hauled their doomed hides out of Dunkirk with no American help, they should be thumping their chests while watching this film. And I will be cheering them on.
Spoiler: the Americans were latecomers to the war. Also, it was the Russians who wore out the German Wehrmacht that allowed for an Allied victory in Europe.
Our hard work was done in the Pacific.
G-d bless King George!
Spoiler: the Americans were latecomers to the war. Also, it was the Russians who wore out the German Wehrmacht that allowed for an Allied victory in Europe.
Our hard work was done in the Pacific.
G-d bless King George!
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
You were still being cowards in 1940. Sorry if the truth hurts.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Cowards? For not actively entering a war when there was then no compelling reason to do so? After hundreds of thousands of casualties in the last European war with nothing to show for it but a seriously damaged economy when Europe stopped payment on the debts they owed America from it?
In the 1930's, the US passed laws to ensure they would not get sucked into another of Europe's incessant wars by limiting trade with belligerent countries. IN 1940, they scrapped much of those laws in order to selectively aid the Allied cause knowing that it risked US involvement as it did in 1917.
In the 1930's, the US passed laws to ensure they would not get sucked into another of Europe's incessant wars by limiting trade with belligerent countries. IN 1940, they scrapped much of those laws in order to selectively aid the Allied cause knowing that it risked US involvement as it did in 1917.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Cowards?
Yes.
For not actively entering a war when there was then no compelling reason to do so
Yes, it was only the Nazi's and Japanese trying to take over other countries. Silly reasons really. Ironically, the good ol' USA stays out of things they should have got involved in but play the world police on things that have nothing to do with them.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
I didn't notice Britain declaring war on Japan when they invaded China in 1937 then invaded French Indochina in 1940 The UK didn't declare war on Italy when they invaded Ethiopia and Albania. Indeed, Italian threats of war were enough to deter the British government from imposing sanctions.
The UK and France avoided war with Germany as Hitler progressively trashed the post-Great War treaties and invaded its neighbours until September 1939. They did so explicitly because they were afraid of the casualties a war would bring. Hardly evidence of British bravery, was it?
Now perhaps in hindsight, one can see that the Second World war was really different from previous European conflicts. As far as most Americans could tell, this was just another of the silly wars Europe got into every generation that were none of America's business. It really did take some time to see that Hitler was different from Wilhelm II, Bismarck, Bonaparte, the Hapsburgs, Romanovs, Hanovers, Bourbons, etc. It really wasn't that obvious at the time.
.
Note though, that without having been attacked, the US was willing to give all aid short of outright war, including convoying British ships and attacking German ones, even if it meant going to war. The US also knew that the sanctions against Japan would lead to war yet imposed them anyway.
The UK and France avoided war with Germany as Hitler progressively trashed the post-Great War treaties and invaded its neighbours until September 1939. They did so explicitly because they were afraid of the casualties a war would bring. Hardly evidence of British bravery, was it?
Now perhaps in hindsight, one can see that the Second World war was really different from previous European conflicts. As far as most Americans could tell, this was just another of the silly wars Europe got into every generation that were none of America's business. It really did take some time to see that Hitler was different from Wilhelm II, Bismarck, Bonaparte, the Hapsburgs, Romanovs, Hanovers, Bourbons, etc. It really wasn't that obvious at the time.
.
Note though, that without having been attacked, the US was willing to give all aid short of outright war, including convoying British ships and attacking German ones, even if it meant going to war. The US also knew that the sanctions against Japan would lead to war yet imposed them anyway.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Hardly evidence of British bravery, was it?
The British Army, which were small in comparison to the French and Germans, were still recovering from World War One, which America turned up for at the last minute, where we lost 500'000 lives. So don't talk about British bravery, pal.
the US was willing to give all aid
Give? Everything "given" to the Brits was PAID for prior to lend lease. If there's nothing in it for America, they don't give a sh!t. Except for Vietnam which worked out really well.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
The British Army, which were small in comparison to the French and Germans, were still recovering from World War One,
The US Army and Air Corps in 1939 was much smaller than the British Army and RAF. American casualties may not have been as bad as Britain's, but they gained nothing from the war but a bunch of deadbeat debtors. The Royal Navy. which arguably won the Great War, for the Allies, was still the largest and best in the world. The French Army was the second largest in the world. Germany could have easily been defeated in 1935-38 had the Allies the will.
So don't talk about British bravery, pal.
Double standards much?
Everything "given" to the Brits was PAID for prior to lend lease.
And free there after. Do recall L-L was instituted months before the US entered the war and that the USN was escorting convoys. Even before that, the US and Britain were working on innovative ways around American neutrality laws and impending British bankruptcy. This includes selling most of America's war reserve stocks at bargain prices, including the USN's ASW reserve - something that came back to bite them in the butt in 1942.
Do note that the US didn't have to sell any arms to the Allies and didn't have to embargo the Axis - but they did. That last, incidentally is something they did not do in the last war until they actually entered it.
As for Lend -Lease, it was a quite novel concept to give massive amounts oof aid for free.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
it's going to be pretty hard including americans in this movie since dunkirk took place at the end of may- beginning of jun 1940 and America didn't join in until after pearl harbour dec 1941.
But then again a slight problem with the facts has never stopped American's being the major player in such films as in u-571
or private ryan where Americans where the only ones there.
We are over the chest thumping hyper-patriotic Jingoistic brit centric war films, American's do this so much better than we do.
This retreat was a desperate action, the true heroes where the captains and sailors of the small boats who sailed across the channel and ferried the soldiers from the shore to the big boats who couldn't get in any closer, fishermen and ordinary people who put their lives on the line to turn a devistating defeat into a 'small set-back' and allowed the United Kingdom to remain in the War.
But then again a slight problem with the facts has never stopped American's being the major player in such films as in u-571
or private ryan where Americans where the only ones there.
We are over the chest thumping hyper-patriotic Jingoistic brit centric war films, American's do this so much better than we do.
This retreat was a desperate action, the true heroes where the captains and sailors of the small boats who sailed across the channel and ferried the soldiers from the shore to the big boats who couldn't get in any closer, fishermen and ordinary people who put their lives on the line to turn a devistating defeat into a 'small set-back' and allowed the United Kingdom to remain in the War.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
FDR will be directing things on the phone between chain smoking cigarettes and playing slap-arse with his secretary.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
I see the dumbbutt patriots on both sides are invading this thread.
And the ignorance of history shown is incredible.
And the ignorance of history shown is incredible.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Tee hee.
Whatever you are, be a good one.
Whatever you are, be a good one.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
The American contribution, in a movie about the Battle of Dunkirk, which took place a full year and half before America entered the war? That sounds like a reasonable request
BARTYOUWANNASEEMYNEWCHAINSAWANDHOCKEYMASK?!?!
BARTYOUWANNASEEMYNEWCHAINSAWANDHOCKEYMASK?!?!
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Since this thread has died off I thought I would add some additional information about the Soviet war effort to WWII:
For those who think that the USSR was able to fight Nazi Germany thanks to the weaponry provided by the US and UK, it's worth to have in consideration that such material (specially the American one) was of such low quality that the Soviet military leadership decided to use it only for training (including fighter planes, tanks, etc) and the vast majority of this material was provided from 1943 onwards, at a time when the USSR had already defeated Nazi Germany using its own weaponry (Stalingrad, the biggest and most decisive battle of the war ended early February 1943).
The fact is that Soviet weaponry (like the famous T34 tank) was of such high quality (plus easy to produce in huge numbers and to keep working, while German weaponry tended to be far more complex, albeit of an even higher quality)that the weaponry provided to them by the UK and US was of no use for them.
It is known than that a single German Tiger tank (by admission of the own US troops) was the equivalent of 10 US Sherman tanks (also called ''Tommycookers'' by the German troops as they tended to catch fire and burn everyone inside when hit) and this was the best tank of the war (at least until the Panther came onto the battlefield), hence a T34 was probably the equivalent of around 7 or 8 Sherman tanks.
For those who think that the USSR was able to fight Nazi Germany thanks to the weaponry provided by the US and UK, it's worth to have in consideration that such material (specially the American one) was of such low quality that the Soviet military leadership decided to use it only for training (including fighter planes, tanks, etc) and the vast majority of this material was provided from 1943 onwards, at a time when the USSR had already defeated Nazi Germany using its own weaponry (Stalingrad, the biggest and most decisive battle of the war ended early February 1943).
The fact is that Soviet weaponry (like the famous T34 tank) was of such high quality (plus easy to produce in huge numbers and to keep working, while German weaponry tended to be far more complex, albeit of an even higher quality)that the weaponry provided to them by the UK and US was of no use for them.
It is known than that a single German Tiger tank (by admission of the own US troops) was the equivalent of 10 US Sherman tanks (also called ''Tommycookers'' by the German troops as they tended to catch fire and burn everyone inside when hit) and this was the best tank of the war (at least until the Panther came onto the battlefield), hence a T34 was probably the equivalent of around 7 or 8 Sherman tanks.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Since this thread has died off I thought I would add some additional information about the Soviet war effort to WWII:
Pity almost none of what you write is correct. Your claim that American weapons, for instance, were useful only for training is complete nonsense. They were issued to front line units who found them excellent pierces of kit. Indeed, Soviet tankers found that they preferred the Sherman to the T-34. The P-39 and P-63 were also very well liked fighter aircraft. They didn't like most British tanks very much, though. The Valentine was an exception. When Soviet and American production made them superfluous as front line vehicles, they became very useful training tanks.
As for the usefulness of Lend Lease, true, monthly amounts of aid increased greatly came after early 1943. Well before that though, it was vital in keeping the Soviet Union in the war. Food aid in particular was essential. The Soviet Advance after early 1943 was only made possible by American supplies, especially trucks and locomotives
It is known than that a single German Tiger tank (by admission of the own US troops) was the equivalent of 10 US Sherman tanks
This is a commonly repeated myth - though the usual figure is five. Most Tigers were lost before reaching the battlefield. Those that did arrive usually had the advantage in that the German were fighting defensively, so they could attack from ambush. The high loss ratios really only happened during the Normandy fighting when British tanks basically charged head-long into German kill zones of tanks and AT guns. Assaulting prepared positions is usually quite costly.
Yes, not surprisingly, a seventy ton tank will tend to do better in a one on one duel than a thirty ton one. Not that the Allies fought one-on-one when they could help it - and they usually could. Of course, most German tanks were not Tigers or even Panthers, which were late war vehicles in any case. Most Panzers, even in 1944/45 were Panzer IVs and StuG III and IV. Both markedly inferior to the Sherman. Nor did the Germans call them Tommy Cookers. Thats a British term for an improvised field stove. IN fact, Shermans were no more prone to burning or catastrophic explosions when penetrated than any other contemporary tank. In fact, Shermans produced in 1944 and '45 were much less prone to do so because of improved ammunition stowage.
hence a T34 was probably the equivalent of around 7 or 8 Sherman tanks.
Given that the T-34's armour was no better, that the T-34 exploded catastrophically unlike late model Shermans, that the 76 mm armed T-34 only had a two man turret and usually had no radio, that the Sherman's ergonomics were better, that the Sherman's quality control was better, that Soviet tankers liked Shermans better, and that they were consistently beaten by American Shermans in Korea, I rather doubt that.
Re: Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Soviet crews prefered the Tommy Cooker (aka Sherman tank) to the T-34??????? Only one possible answer to this: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where did you learn about WWII? On the back of cereal boxes???? I have never read something as RETARDED as this in my whole life! It's soooooo ABSURD is beyond words!
Next you will claim that the X-Men won WWII for the 'glorious' US and that Magneto liberated Auschwitz (since according to what you have been told 'he was there')! HAHAHAHAHA!
Mate, read some PROPER WWII HISTORY instead:
1) Beevor, A. (2001). Stalingrad. Penguin Books: London.
2) Cross, R. (2002). The Battle of Kursk: Operation Citadel 1943. Penguin Books Ltd. UK.
3) Winchester, C. (2001). Ostfront : Hitler's War on Russia 1941-45. Reading, UK: Osprey Publishing Ltd.
4) Zaloga, S. (2000). Operation Bagration. Reading, UK: Osprey Publishing Ltd.
Also, I would recommend that you change your drug dealer: you are smoking some weird s**t!
Where did you learn about WWII? On the back of cereal boxes???? I have never read something as RETARDED as this in my whole life! It's soooooo ABSURD is beyond words!
Next you will claim that the X-Men won WWII for the 'glorious' US and that Magneto liberated Auschwitz (since according to what you have been told 'he was there')! HAHAHAHAHA!
Mate, read some PROPER WWII HISTORY instead:
1) Beevor, A. (2001). Stalingrad. Penguin Books: London.
2) Cross, R. (2002). The Battle of Kursk: Operation Citadel 1943. Penguin Books Ltd. UK.
3) Winchester, C. (2001). Ostfront : Hitler's War on Russia 1941-45. Reading, UK: Osprey Publishing Ltd.
4) Zaloga, S. (2000). Operation Bagration. Reading, UK: Osprey Publishing Ltd.
Also, I would recommend that you change your drug dealer: you are smoking some weird s**t!
1
2
▲ Top
Will they show the American contribution to the war?
Voyage of Time:
October 7